Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish this as a non-destructive read-only operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it requires a paid plan and specifies the metrics included in the summary. It does not mention rate limits or other constraints, but the key prerequisites are disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the main purpose and included metrics come first, followed by the optional filter and plan requirement. Every sentence adds useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and the read-only annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a two-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, the description omits the windowDays parameter entirely, leaving an important semantic gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the optional platform filter but never mentions the windowDays parameter, its 7/30/90 enum, or its default of 30. The reference to "next 7 days" could even confuse the windowDays semantics, leaving half the schema undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and aggregate resource: it retrieves an account-health summary across all connected social accounts, and enumerates the included metrics (connected accounts, post counts by status, drafts, expiring tokens). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this aggregate view from sibling tools like list_connected_accounts, list_drafts, or get_channel_analytics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use it by framing the tool as a cross-account summary and mentioning an optional platform filter, plus a paid-plan prerequisite. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the sibling list or analytics tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.